I am bothered by what I have read about two recently-introduced bills, SB 425 by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH and its House version, HR 875 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. I understand that these would establish a new Food Safety Administration (FSA) to "protect the public health" and "ensure the safety of food." This new bureaucracy would not replace the FDA but add to that already bloated bureaucracy. Apparently, current laws governing food safety are not enough.
As it is currently written, this bill would give FSA inspectors the right to enter, anywhere in the world, any premises of any food establishment to inspect and determine whether the product of that food establishment should be sold to American consumers. A "food establishment" is any "facility...that processes food or a facility that hold, stores, or transports food or food ingredients." There is also language about a "food production facility" that is "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding facility." The bill empowers the new FSA to promulgate regulations further defining what "food" is, and regulating the manner of its growth, processing and delivery to the consumer. If you produce this "food," you will have to provide the paperwork to document that you produced it according to the regulations of the FSA. If not, under the House version, a $1,000,000 fine is levied for each infraction of the "rules" or "orders" of the FSA for each day that such infractions are deemed to exist by the FSA. The Senate version provides for a fine of $100,000 for each violation of any order or regulation of the FSA and for each day that such violation occurs.
I believe that small farmers and food processors would be forced out of business or at least forced to raise their prices if these bills were passed into law. I can think of a few such businesses. North Texas is known for its peach and pecan farms. There's the Red River Farm Trails Peach Festival at Tucker Farms in the Charlie-Thornberry area. I remember going to apple orchards in the St. Louis area as a child with my grandparents. Most small towns, such as Wichita Falls, have a farmer's market. Even some big cities have one, such as St. Louis' Soulard Market. East Texas has many chicken farms run by individuals or families who raise chickens for Pilgrim's Pride. (No, they don't raise all of their own chickens.) I saw fish and crawfish farms in Louisiana when I lived there some 10 years ago. These businesses would probably find it difficult to keep up with these additional regs without passing on costs to consumers. Potentially any individual who sells or even freely shares the bounty of their home garden would be under this bill's jurisdiction.
This is reminiscent of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which became law last fall and went into effect 2/10/09. It was passed in response to the Chinese lead scare. According to a 3/5/09 report from TheHill.com, youth ATV dealers, libraries, thrift stores and bicycle makers are among the constituencies worried that they may be affected. Joe Martyak, the Consumer Product Safety Commission chief of staff said that they have received “thousands and thousands and thousands” of complaints about the new law. The Coalition for Safe and Affordable Childrenswear, a New York-based group, said manufacturers will have to take back $500,000,000 worth of children’s products under the new law. Steve Burnside, who owns DSD Kawasaki and RV Sales in Parkersburg, West Virginia said two manufacturers told him to pull their youth ATVs and motorbikes off the showroom floor out of fear their products would be out of compliance with the new law. “This segment is a big portion of our business,” Burnside said. He estimates sales may eventually fall off 40 percent due to the new restriction, which compounds the sales decline his business had already experienced due to the poor economy. Ed Krenik, a Bracewell & Giuliani (that is former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani) lobbyist for the Coalition for Safe and Responsible ATV Use, said dealerships also feel they can’t repair already sold ATVs because some of the components may not comply with the new lead standards.
Why is it when we the people create and innovate during tough economic times and naturally devise a solution to the problems mostly created by the federal government, that same government feels compelled to intervene once again? It seems as though they cannot stand us doing something without their approval. I really do not believe that they care for the "public safety" nearly as much as they want to control our lives. The "public good" term or "general welfare" clause has been stretched to the point of hurting people's pocketbooks. That's not a statement of greed but simply a statement supporting every person's right to support themselves as the Bible mandates. The unintended consequences of the CPSIA are not long in coming to fruition. Should this law and its results not be seriously considered before rushing into another similar law?
While I do not support the proposed food bill or the current CPSIA law, I suppose that they are both justified under the commerce clause of the U.S. Consitution. I would rather the states experiment with such legislation for the following reason: if it works out, then individuals and businesses will flock to that state; if it's a "trainwreck", then individuals and businesses will leave. The founders envisioned such a system. Allow the states to experiment so that the whole nation doesn't have to suffer the consequences of a bad law. While I'm a little fuzzy on what the commerce clause allows, I do know that the Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. What good are state laws if there are federal laws to trump each one of those unique state laws?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
SCHIP
This is a constituent response from the senior Senator from Texas. I will take the liberty of posting it so as to make a few points since I can't send her a reply.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue. Texas has the highest number of uninsured children in the nation, with 1 in 5 lacking health insurance. Without insurance, many families are unable to afford routine care for their children, and without medical attention, many illnesses become significantly worse and more expensive to treat. According to the Texas Legislative Budget Board, a condition that can be treated in a doctor’s office in Texas for $56.21 would cost $193.92 to treat in an emergency room, a cost increase of almost 250%. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, a child ineligible for Medicaid could be insured for $1,175. The average hospital stay for a child without health insurance, on the other hand, costs $6,700. This implies that the cost of service to uninsured people is more than the cost of service to insured people. Actually, the direct pay option (patient-doctor/hospital) should cost the "system" less than the third-party option (patient-insurance company/Medicaid-doctor/hospital). We are experiencing this firsthand right now. A certain doctor's services will cost us over $6,000 if we run it through insurance; if we choose to pay him directly, though, it will cost HALF as much. A health insurance agent also told me some time ago that doctors have to "mark up" because Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies "compel" them to discount their rates. If some bureaucracy told you that they would only pay 50% of your fees, would you "mark up" 100% or would you fire your employees and close down your business?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to provide a backstop for children who are ineligible for Medicaid, and whose families cannot otherwise afford private health insurance. The program is financed by both the federal government and the states (Let's get something settled right now; its financed primarily by smokers through the tobacco tax and by all other taxpayers through the income tax.), and each state is given the flexibility to create a unique coverage plan and outline its own eligibility requirements for the program. The federal government contributes 72 cents out of every dollar spent on children eligible for the SCHIP program. This 72 cents can go a long way in providing needy children with routine care, instead of leaving those children uninsured and burdening county taxpayers with all the costs of emergency room care. (What's the difference between burdening county taxpayers, state taxpayers or federal taxpayers? Aren't they all the same!) In fact, one report has shown that health insurance premiums for Texas families with insurance include an extra charge of $1,551 in order to offset the costs of those without insurance.
On January 29, 2009, H.R. 2, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, passed in the Senate. (They only debated this bill for two days.) I voted to reauthorize the SCHIP program because it provides critical federal funds for young Texans’ health care needs (Define the difference between a need and a want. I can understand going to the doctor for a broken arm, but some conditions can be treated at home with a little TLC. Each family needs to determine how far to let something go before seeing a doctor. Most people know a nurse. Ask them for advice. I am certain, though, that if people had to pay most if not all of the cost of their healthcare, they would think twice before going.), which are not currently being met. While the bill was not perfect, I supported a number of amendments offered to improve the legislation. (There were 11 such amendments with only one passing. To her credit, one of these was hers.) The Congressional Research Service projects that, under this legislation, Texas’ SCHIP allotment will rise 72 percent from roughly $550 million to over $945 million in FY2009. (The total cost of this bill rose from $50,000,000,000 to $90,000,000,000, so each state on average received a 72% increase. Where else but the federal trough could you get a raise like that in this economy?!?) This funding will make a significant difference in the lives of families and taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. What about those of us struggling to make our ends as well as their ends meet?
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
I know it's easy to be this critical as a constituent versus a politician; it would take a lot of political courage to say and do these things on the floor of the Senate. However, instead of weaning this country off of federal teets, we're making them bigger and adding more of them. When will one of these teets ever dry up and go away?
The Government Accountability Office told Congress in September 2008 the following:
"Just ten years from now in this simulation that is based on historical trends and recent policy preferences, 76 percent of every dollar of federal revenue will be spent on retirees and their health care providers, health care providers for the poor, and our bond holders. This leaves little room for other priorities, such as national defense and investment in infrastructure and alternative energy sources, and threatens the government's fiscal ability to respond to emergencies, both natural and manmade."
This is a more real threat to our welfare than climate change. A half-a-degree-warmer planet will not change our lifestyle nearly as much as the big vacuum cleaner that is Washington, D.C.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue. Texas has the highest number of uninsured children in the nation, with 1 in 5 lacking health insurance. Without insurance, many families are unable to afford routine care for their children, and without medical attention, many illnesses become significantly worse and more expensive to treat. According to the Texas Legislative Budget Board, a condition that can be treated in a doctor’s office in Texas for $56.21 would cost $193.92 to treat in an emergency room, a cost increase of almost 250%. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, a child ineligible for Medicaid could be insured for $1,175. The average hospital stay for a child without health insurance, on the other hand, costs $6,700. This implies that the cost of service to uninsured people is more than the cost of service to insured people. Actually, the direct pay option (patient-doctor/hospital) should cost the "system" less than the third-party option (patient-insurance company/Medicaid-doctor/hospital). We are experiencing this firsthand right now. A certain doctor's services will cost us over $6,000 if we run it through insurance; if we choose to pay him directly, though, it will cost HALF as much. A health insurance agent also told me some time ago that doctors have to "mark up" because Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies "compel" them to discount their rates. If some bureaucracy told you that they would only pay 50% of your fees, would you "mark up" 100% or would you fire your employees and close down your business?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to provide a backstop for children who are ineligible for Medicaid, and whose families cannot otherwise afford private health insurance. The program is financed by both the federal government and the states (Let's get something settled right now; its financed primarily by smokers through the tobacco tax and by all other taxpayers through the income tax.), and each state is given the flexibility to create a unique coverage plan and outline its own eligibility requirements for the program. The federal government contributes 72 cents out of every dollar spent on children eligible for the SCHIP program. This 72 cents can go a long way in providing needy children with routine care, instead of leaving those children uninsured and burdening county taxpayers with all the costs of emergency room care. (What's the difference between burdening county taxpayers, state taxpayers or federal taxpayers? Aren't they all the same!) In fact, one report has shown that health insurance premiums for Texas families with insurance include an extra charge of $1,551 in order to offset the costs of those without insurance.
On January 29, 2009, H.R. 2, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, passed in the Senate. (They only debated this bill for two days.) I voted to reauthorize the SCHIP program because it provides critical federal funds for young Texans’ health care needs (Define the difference between a need and a want. I can understand going to the doctor for a broken arm, but some conditions can be treated at home with a little TLC. Each family needs to determine how far to let something go before seeing a doctor. Most people know a nurse. Ask them for advice. I am certain, though, that if people had to pay most if not all of the cost of their healthcare, they would think twice before going.), which are not currently being met. While the bill was not perfect, I supported a number of amendments offered to improve the legislation. (There were 11 such amendments with only one passing. To her credit, one of these was hers.) The Congressional Research Service projects that, under this legislation, Texas’ SCHIP allotment will rise 72 percent from roughly $550 million to over $945 million in FY2009. (The total cost of this bill rose from $50,000,000,000 to $90,000,000,000, so each state on average received a 72% increase. Where else but the federal trough could you get a raise like that in this economy?!?) This funding will make a significant difference in the lives of families and taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. What about those of us struggling to make our ends as well as their ends meet?
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
I know it's easy to be this critical as a constituent versus a politician; it would take a lot of political courage to say and do these things on the floor of the Senate. However, instead of weaning this country off of federal teets, we're making them bigger and adding more of them. When will one of these teets ever dry up and go away?
The Government Accountability Office told Congress in September 2008 the following:
"Just ten years from now in this simulation that is based on historical trends and recent policy preferences, 76 percent of every dollar of federal revenue will be spent on retirees and their health care providers, health care providers for the poor, and our bond holders. This leaves little room for other priorities, such as national defense and investment in infrastructure and alternative energy sources, and threatens the government's fiscal ability to respond to emergencies, both natural and manmade."
This is a more real threat to our welfare than climate change. A half-a-degree-warmer planet will not change our lifestyle nearly as much as the big vacuum cleaner that is Washington, D.C.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Debate
I've gotta laugh about this feigned outrage on the Hill about these AIG bonuses. Right or wrong, these bonuses were protected in this latest $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill. (It turns out that the bonus-protecting provision was inserted by the Senator from Connecticut where most of these bonus recipients reside. He also happens to be the largest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. Always follow the $$$) However, because they have slowly whipped the public into such a frenzy over the "greed" of Wall Street, lawmakers are now in high CYB mode. Actually, it's so sad and pathetic that I want to cry. What an embarassment to the world as it watches these events unfold! How can the USA be taken seriously anymore? There's a clause in the Constitution requiring that Congressman be at least 25 years old and Senators 30 years old before taking office, but my 7 and 3 year old kids have better moments than this collective body. Shame on our founders for thinking that age was the only mark of maturity.
It usually takes years before the unintended consequences of a law manifests itself, especially to its authors, but they and we get to see some of those right away on this one. This is good in one sense; maybe they'll spend a little more time debating the next $700+ billion so-called stimulus bill. Pardon my French, but they rammed this last one through Congress faster than you-know-what goes through a goose. Within the last year, the federal government has rammed through stimulus/bailout bills which will cost us, over time, over $4,500,000,000,000! Per Bianco Research-ABC News, this is more than the combined cost of the Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, New Deal, Korean War, Moon Race, Vietnam War, S&L crisis, Iraq War and NASA over its lifetime!
We the people were promised a new era of accountability, transparency and time to review spending bills...except for this one I guess. If I really suspend disbelief, I can sort of understand the House doing so, but the Senate is supposed to be a much more deliberative body; the filibuster,as well as the six-year term, is a means to that end. The Senate started debating this bill on 2/3/09, and passed it on 2/10/09. It was singed into law by 2/17/09. They only spent one week debating a $787,000,000,000 bill! What's the hurry? How many times are we told that this must be done right away or else, that there's no time to lose or that a crisis will become a catastrophe if we don't act now? Is this not a subtle way of saying that this or any bill would never pass muster if the public had time to review and hear debate on it? If it's really that good, then it will sustain vigorous debate.
Consider this. How do you respond to a telemarketer or door-to-door salesman who asks you to buy something right now? How about a car salesman asking you to sign the papers right after test-driving the car? What about a PAC asking for a donation? Don't you like some time to think about it, consider different options or, heaven forbid, see if there is room in your budget? If I make a hasty decision and it turns out to be a bad one, only me and my family suffers. However, if our government makes a hasty decision, which becomes the law of the land, and it turns out to be a bad one, every citizen suffers. Legislators have an obligation to think about it, consider different options and see if there is room in the budget, and I would like to think that these parameters should be in proportion to the size of the bill? Is this not a reasonable request?
Well, if you agree, then keep this mind the next time you vote. If you don't agree or don't even care, then please don't vote. An uniformed voter will do more damage to the republic than someone who doesn't vote at all.
It usually takes years before the unintended consequences of a law manifests itself, especially to its authors, but they and we get to see some of those right away on this one. This is good in one sense; maybe they'll spend a little more time debating the next $700+ billion so-called stimulus bill. Pardon my French, but they rammed this last one through Congress faster than you-know-what goes through a goose. Within the last year, the federal government has rammed through stimulus/bailout bills which will cost us, over time, over $4,500,000,000,000! Per Bianco Research-ABC News, this is more than the combined cost of the Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, New Deal, Korean War, Moon Race, Vietnam War, S&L crisis, Iraq War and NASA over its lifetime!
We the people were promised a new era of accountability, transparency and time to review spending bills...except for this one I guess. If I really suspend disbelief, I can sort of understand the House doing so, but the Senate is supposed to be a much more deliberative body; the filibuster,as well as the six-year term, is a means to that end. The Senate started debating this bill on 2/3/09, and passed it on 2/10/09. It was singed into law by 2/17/09. They only spent one week debating a $787,000,000,000 bill! What's the hurry? How many times are we told that this must be done right away or else, that there's no time to lose or that a crisis will become a catastrophe if we don't act now? Is this not a subtle way of saying that this or any bill would never pass muster if the public had time to review and hear debate on it? If it's really that good, then it will sustain vigorous debate.
Consider this. How do you respond to a telemarketer or door-to-door salesman who asks you to buy something right now? How about a car salesman asking you to sign the papers right after test-driving the car? What about a PAC asking for a donation? Don't you like some time to think about it, consider different options or, heaven forbid, see if there is room in your budget? If I make a hasty decision and it turns out to be a bad one, only me and my family suffers. However, if our government makes a hasty decision, which becomes the law of the land, and it turns out to be a bad one, every citizen suffers. Legislators have an obligation to think about it, consider different options and see if there is room in the budget, and I would like to think that these parameters should be in proportion to the size of the bill? Is this not a reasonable request?
Well, if you agree, then keep this mind the next time you vote. If you don't agree or don't even care, then please don't vote. An uniformed voter will do more damage to the republic than someone who doesn't vote at all.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Conservatism
The local paper had excerpts from an article written by a John Mark Reynolds, head of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University, commenting on Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech two weeks ago and how it squares with conservatism. I think he misunderstands conservatism, or worse, seeks to redefine it. Let it be known that not only did I listen to that speech, I listen to Rush everyday, have done so for over six years and am proud of it. Yes, I am biased, but I have the ability to take what Rush says in context. Judging by the very nature of this essay, I will assume that Mr. Reynolds does not daily listen to Rush. The theme of his essay is that true conservatism requires external checks and balances (hereafter C&B), more specifically federal government fiscal C&B. I contend that fiscal C&B are inherent to conservatism.
Conservatism does not advocate that the federal government is evil and must be abolished. Conservatism champions government when it follows the pact between it and the people, i.e. our Constitution. Conservativism is the belief that the primary role of government is the defense of its citizens against physical harm. The writers of this document were God-fearing men who understood the nature of mankind, including, yes, their sinful nature but also the yearning to be free. They were also keenly aware of the evils of excessive government; they lived under one until the Revolutionary War. It actually took two attempts to strike the right balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society, and it has served our nation well for over 220 years. It has resulted in the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the world...at least for now. What conservatism advocates, however, is freedom, self-determination and the rolling back of unconstitutional federal government, of excessive fiscal C&B, which I believe has resulted in our current economic woes.
It's easy and popular to lay at the feet of fiscal conservatism, or capitalism, the current economic crisis. Mr. Reynolds says that conservatism's vision of "unfettered human potential and complete trust in corporate America" is disturbing in light of the current economic crisis. How does unfettered human potential and complete trust in corporate America look? Is it not you, me and millions of others being allowed to use our God-given abilities and voluntarily exchange goods, services and money? You can certainly dwell on the bad actors, such as Enron or Madoff, to advocate more fiscal C&B. I believe that Enron had great leaders with great ideas at their beginning and for most of their existence. They provided goods and services people wanted or needed. I believe Madoff had at least the skills to do the same; he certainly was a good salesman. At some point, however, they lost sight of truly serving their fellow man, which is one of our highest callings in life. They took the quick and easy route to financial security whether they "cooked the books" or ran a Ponzi scheme. Yes, unfortunately many people lost money in these situations, but is that a reason to lay on the backs of every other American and American company more regulation, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which some of its original proponents in Congress have called into question) as well as more taxation? Are these fiscal C&B not simply barriers to the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money and possibly even a cause of some of the bad actors? These bad actors should be punished with laws written in accordance with the spirit of government's secondary role of defending liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't infringe on another person's liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, will not an informed public learn from these mistakes and avoid, or at least be cautious of, such entities in the future? What happened to personal responsibility and learning from mistakes? I don't have to tell my son not to touch the BBQ grill anymore ever since he burned himself on it a few years ago or tell him not to play with fire after he nearly burned up my back yard last summer. The school of hard knocks is the best teacher. (Back to Madoff, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. When the DJIA has an average annual ROR of 12% over its 70+ year life but someone shows and promises twice that or more, let the buyer beware.)
I believe the root cause of this crisis is over-regulation of the financial system of this country by the federal government. When banks are forced to make loans to people who cannot repay them, they are doomed to fail sooner or later. Banks do not naturally want to do this. Who can blame them? Why is it wrong to check someone's credit history and income and disqualify them if they cannot be expected to repay a loan? Consider this: should apartment's be forced to forgo checking credit histories of potential tenants before giving them the keys? Government does not require them to run background checks; they naturally do this. This is the conservative thing to do. This is what Rush advocated at CPAC and advocates daily on his show. Mankind's inherent self-interest, mistakenly called greed, includes fiscal C&B. However, the federal government can force apartments to forgo this process in the name of "fairness" which was the reasoning behind their fiscal C&B and which ultimately caused the banking system to collapse.
Finally, I agree that the world is full of sinful people. We will always have in our midst those who take advantage of others. Let me assure you that if they do not answer for it in this life, they will in the next life; God is not mocked. However, no amount of external, fiscal C&B will purge sin or "unfairness" from society. Those who think so are living in a dream world or desire it. What makes the fiscal C&B of the federal government, also composed of sinful people, any better than the fiscal C&B of the individual? Some politicans may have good intentions, but others simply want control over people's lives. I believe that as long as this country remains true to its founding Judeo-Christian, conservative principles, external, fiscal C&B are not needed at least not to the extent they currently exist.
Hopefully, people will realize this before we lose the republic and become servants of government.
Conservatism does not advocate that the federal government is evil and must be abolished. Conservatism champions government when it follows the pact between it and the people, i.e. our Constitution. Conservativism is the belief that the primary role of government is the defense of its citizens against physical harm. The writers of this document were God-fearing men who understood the nature of mankind, including, yes, their sinful nature but also the yearning to be free. They were also keenly aware of the evils of excessive government; they lived under one until the Revolutionary War. It actually took two attempts to strike the right balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society, and it has served our nation well for over 220 years. It has resulted in the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the world...at least for now. What conservatism advocates, however, is freedom, self-determination and the rolling back of unconstitutional federal government, of excessive fiscal C&B, which I believe has resulted in our current economic woes.
It's easy and popular to lay at the feet of fiscal conservatism, or capitalism, the current economic crisis. Mr. Reynolds says that conservatism's vision of "unfettered human potential and complete trust in corporate America" is disturbing in light of the current economic crisis. How does unfettered human potential and complete trust in corporate America look? Is it not you, me and millions of others being allowed to use our God-given abilities and voluntarily exchange goods, services and money? You can certainly dwell on the bad actors, such as Enron or Madoff, to advocate more fiscal C&B. I believe that Enron had great leaders with great ideas at their beginning and for most of their existence. They provided goods and services people wanted or needed. I believe Madoff had at least the skills to do the same; he certainly was a good salesman. At some point, however, they lost sight of truly serving their fellow man, which is one of our highest callings in life. They took the quick and easy route to financial security whether they "cooked the books" or ran a Ponzi scheme. Yes, unfortunately many people lost money in these situations, but is that a reason to lay on the backs of every other American and American company more regulation, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which some of its original proponents in Congress have called into question) as well as more taxation? Are these fiscal C&B not simply barriers to the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money and possibly even a cause of some of the bad actors? These bad actors should be punished with laws written in accordance with the spirit of government's secondary role of defending liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't infringe on another person's liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, will not an informed public learn from these mistakes and avoid, or at least be cautious of, such entities in the future? What happened to personal responsibility and learning from mistakes? I don't have to tell my son not to touch the BBQ grill anymore ever since he burned himself on it a few years ago or tell him not to play with fire after he nearly burned up my back yard last summer. The school of hard knocks is the best teacher. (Back to Madoff, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. When the DJIA has an average annual ROR of 12% over its 70+ year life but someone shows and promises twice that or more, let the buyer beware.)
I believe the root cause of this crisis is over-regulation of the financial system of this country by the federal government. When banks are forced to make loans to people who cannot repay them, they are doomed to fail sooner or later. Banks do not naturally want to do this. Who can blame them? Why is it wrong to check someone's credit history and income and disqualify them if they cannot be expected to repay a loan? Consider this: should apartment's be forced to forgo checking credit histories of potential tenants before giving them the keys? Government does not require them to run background checks; they naturally do this. This is the conservative thing to do. This is what Rush advocated at CPAC and advocates daily on his show. Mankind's inherent self-interest, mistakenly called greed, includes fiscal C&B. However, the federal government can force apartments to forgo this process in the name of "fairness" which was the reasoning behind their fiscal C&B and which ultimately caused the banking system to collapse.
Finally, I agree that the world is full of sinful people. We will always have in our midst those who take advantage of others. Let me assure you that if they do not answer for it in this life, they will in the next life; God is not mocked. However, no amount of external, fiscal C&B will purge sin or "unfairness" from society. Those who think so are living in a dream world or desire it. What makes the fiscal C&B of the federal government, also composed of sinful people, any better than the fiscal C&B of the individual? Some politicans may have good intentions, but others simply want control over people's lives. I believe that as long as this country remains true to its founding Judeo-Christian, conservative principles, external, fiscal C&B are not needed at least not to the extent they currently exist.
Hopefully, people will realize this before we lose the republic and become servants of government.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Wyeth v. Levine
The latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling to be made and released to the public deals with a woman, Diana Levine, who sued a pharmaceutical company, Wyeth, for a drug of their making that caused her to lose an arm. They upheld a $6,700,000 jury award from a Vermont state trial. Apparently, Vermont law requires stronger warnings than the FDA requires.
Phenargen is an anti-nausea drug that can be administered via injection. Its public use was approved by the FDA decades ago, including the method of use at issue in this case, to treat nausea, and when used properly, it is safe and effective or so says both parties. While I feel sorry for her, she was, or should have been, aware of the risks of the drug which are printed on the label as they are on all drug labels.
While I still struggle with the constitutionality of this bureaucracy or at least its current size, scope and power, if it must exist "for the public good" and if they must have final say on the safety of foods and drugs made by private industry before public consumption and use, then how can drug makers then be held accountable for their drugs' misuse, despite warning labels, or for their side effects which may not be known for years or decades? How many millions of dollars are spent by these companies to make drugs that improves our quality of life, with minimal side effects, and how many more are spent getting approval from the FDA to sell it to the public? How much time passes from that first lab experiment designing a new drug to the first bottle on the store shelf? I realize this time will vary by drug, but I remember hearing some time ago that it takes an average of 12 years to get approval.
Imagine you are asked to make an investment in a new product that will not see any returns for 12 years. Would you do it? Well, "Big Pharma" does this all the time because they hope to sell that drug for even more decades after its FDA approval and see a return on their product. However, will they continue to make these investments of time and resources if they believe they will be sued because someone misuses the drug? They might still do so with malpractice insurance in place, which is an additional cost passed on to the consumer, or they may not do it at all, which is one less life quality-improving drug on the market.
Finally, to address the issue of state versus federal law, which is supreme? Wyeth only needed FDA approval, and thus their version of the proper warning label, to sell this drug in all states in this country. Unless federal law also dictates that they put an additional warning label to accomodate each state wherein the drug is sold, the drug maker should be immune from legal action. If they were required to do so, that would be another cost passed on to the consumer.
Some laws are good, but other ones only limit freedom and increase costs.
Phenargen is an anti-nausea drug that can be administered via injection. Its public use was approved by the FDA decades ago, including the method of use at issue in this case, to treat nausea, and when used properly, it is safe and effective or so says both parties. While I feel sorry for her, she was, or should have been, aware of the risks of the drug which are printed on the label as they are on all drug labels.
While I still struggle with the constitutionality of this bureaucracy or at least its current size, scope and power, if it must exist "for the public good" and if they must have final say on the safety of foods and drugs made by private industry before public consumption and use, then how can drug makers then be held accountable for their drugs' misuse, despite warning labels, or for their side effects which may not be known for years or decades? How many millions of dollars are spent by these companies to make drugs that improves our quality of life, with minimal side effects, and how many more are spent getting approval from the FDA to sell it to the public? How much time passes from that first lab experiment designing a new drug to the first bottle on the store shelf? I realize this time will vary by drug, but I remember hearing some time ago that it takes an average of 12 years to get approval.
Imagine you are asked to make an investment in a new product that will not see any returns for 12 years. Would you do it? Well, "Big Pharma" does this all the time because they hope to sell that drug for even more decades after its FDA approval and see a return on their product. However, will they continue to make these investments of time and resources if they believe they will be sued because someone misuses the drug? They might still do so with malpractice insurance in place, which is an additional cost passed on to the consumer, or they may not do it at all, which is one less life quality-improving drug on the market.
Finally, to address the issue of state versus federal law, which is supreme? Wyeth only needed FDA approval, and thus their version of the proper warning label, to sell this drug in all states in this country. Unless federal law also dictates that they put an additional warning label to accomodate each state wherein the drug is sold, the drug maker should be immune from legal action. If they were required to do so, that would be another cost passed on to the consumer.
Some laws are good, but other ones only limit freedom and increase costs.
Monday, March 2, 2009
We're gonna pay...tomorrow if not today
I'm not an economist, but I enjoy the subject...so much so that I was only one class short of a minor in economics in college. Maybe a better reason to comment on the subject comes simply from living on my own dime for nearly half of my life. There's nothing complicated here; most people do it. I have been through plenty of ups and downs in the pursuit of my dreams, so I have learned to save for that inevitable rainy day. I surely could borrow money for a while to improve my lifestyle, but the bill, or the law, will come sooner or later.
That is and has been the problem with our federal politicians for quite some time but especially within the past half year. In order to improve their lifestyle (translation: retaining power by buying votes), they are spending and proposing to spend money, at least for now, in one of the three ways...printing it versus borrowing it or taking it from taxpayers.
Taxing - This option requires taking money from those "evil" rich people now defined as people or companies making in excess of $250,000 per year. That would include my boss and pretty much anyone who owns a business and employs people. If you tax them too much, they most likely cut their highest expense...labor.
Borrowing - This option requires selling T-bills, bonds, CDs, etc., but that must eventually be repaid. Otherwise, why would people buy them? Unfortunately, they have to sell new ones just to repay the old ones.
Printing - Accelerate the presses! This will lead to inflation or the devaluing of the dollar. Think supply and demand, which even the dollar must obey; the greater the supply of money, the lower its value. This essentially amounts to a tax increase because the price of goods and services used by ALL people increases. What's the difference between a tax or a higher-priced good or service? I still see more money leaving my household for the same goods and services. Furthermore, how long will this inflationary period last and how high will be the inflation rate? I'll bet the more money they print, the longer the period and the higher the rate.
When I spend money I don't have, I alone bear the responsibility of repaying it. When politicians do so, we citizens bear that responsibility because they only have money by force of law. Whatever happened to pay-as-you-go? I guess that's the meaning of "collective responsibility".
Like most school districts across the country, Wichita Falls ISD is getting a cut of this $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill. I believe our cut is something like $5,700,000. I'm sure this was sold as something "for the children". Well, those children (mine) may very well be paying for that portion of the stimulus bill when they grow up and the bill comes due in the form of inflation. The sad truth is that, since they can't yet vote, they can rightly refer to it as "taxation without representation". Those words were part of a rallying cry for a revolution that led to the founding of this great country. Is it time for another one?
That is and has been the problem with our federal politicians for quite some time but especially within the past half year. In order to improve their lifestyle (translation: retaining power by buying votes), they are spending and proposing to spend money, at least for now, in one of the three ways...printing it versus borrowing it or taking it from taxpayers.
Taxing - This option requires taking money from those "evil" rich people now defined as people or companies making in excess of $250,000 per year. That would include my boss and pretty much anyone who owns a business and employs people. If you tax them too much, they most likely cut their highest expense...labor.
Borrowing - This option requires selling T-bills, bonds, CDs, etc., but that must eventually be repaid. Otherwise, why would people buy them? Unfortunately, they have to sell new ones just to repay the old ones.
Printing - Accelerate the presses! This will lead to inflation or the devaluing of the dollar. Think supply and demand, which even the dollar must obey; the greater the supply of money, the lower its value. This essentially amounts to a tax increase because the price of goods and services used by ALL people increases. What's the difference between a tax or a higher-priced good or service? I still see more money leaving my household for the same goods and services. Furthermore, how long will this inflationary period last and how high will be the inflation rate? I'll bet the more money they print, the longer the period and the higher the rate.
When I spend money I don't have, I alone bear the responsibility of repaying it. When politicians do so, we citizens bear that responsibility because they only have money by force of law. Whatever happened to pay-as-you-go? I guess that's the meaning of "collective responsibility".
Like most school districts across the country, Wichita Falls ISD is getting a cut of this $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill. I believe our cut is something like $5,700,000. I'm sure this was sold as something "for the children". Well, those children (mine) may very well be paying for that portion of the stimulus bill when they grow up and the bill comes due in the form of inflation. The sad truth is that, since they can't yet vote, they can rightly refer to it as "taxation without representation". Those words were part of a rallying cry for a revolution that led to the founding of this great country. Is it time for another one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)